Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Michael Bryant sets up a sock puppet to push for his handgun ban | Main | Canada's superior medicare system »

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Why are we there?

"Why are we there?" is a great reminder posted by the DND about Canada's role and operations in Afghanistan:

Read More...

Posted by Winston on August 18, 2007 in Current Affairs, International Affairs, Military | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54ee108dc8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why are we there?:

Comments

All lies. Canada is supporting the Bush Administration's imperialist mission to turn Afghanistan into a colony, extract its resources, defile Islam and above all to provide an excuse to buy new weapons.

yeah, yeah that's it.

The CF, and the other NATO countries, are doing a great job over there and I wish them continued success. Damn what the so-called "anti-war" movement says - this is a perfectly legal and necessary mission to free Afghanistan from terrorists. We did similar things in Yugoslavia, Korea, and both world wars. The left only carps because, well, that's all they can do.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 7:42:11 AM


To underline the hypocrisy ZP, it was the now carping libs who sent them there to begin with!

These ingrates would stand their own mother in front of a train if they thought it could garner them a few votes.

They truly are despicable.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-08-18 8:37:27 AM


deepblue: it gets worse. Sure they say they oppose the mission now, but if they returned to power, will they follow through on their opposition?

It's become a rhetorical question because Liebrals never fulfill their election platform.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 9:06:37 AM


ZP,

I totally agree.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-08-18 9:21:53 AM


"Terrorism remains a threat to global peace and security. Afghanistan has been used as a base for terrorists in the past. In the interests of our collective security, Canada and its international partners share a responsibility to help ensure that terrorism cannot again take root in Afghanistan."

Above is the most important reason for our troops being there. We may not be able to save people from themselves, but we have the right to save ourselves.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-08-18 9:33:29 AM


"Canada and its international partners share a responsibility to help ensure that terrorism cannot again take root in Afghanistan."

Terrorism is a gift from Islam, yet we continue to grow our population with Muslims, some who are terrorists, every year. How is it that we're so dumb to fight so nobly over there while the fire spreads here? I do believe we should be saving ourselves, including here at home.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-18 10:53:02 AM


The Ruxted Group published on "The Torch" Site provides a detailed and comprehensive report on what Canada as a NATO partner in Afghanistan has accomplished and changed the lives of many, many Afghans forever - unfortunately only four NATO
members really count in the overall commitments of NATO, US, UK Germany and Canada -speaking from Experience NATO has never really worked as a cohesive alliance because of parochial politics -France should never have left NATO. But it is the only real alliance Canada has. Macleod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-08-18 10:58:41 AM


Jack: I think you mean the Netherlands, not Germany. The Germans won't deploy their troops to a hostile area, like the Italians, French, and a few others. The Dutch, on the other hand, are with the US, UK and Canadians in active combat against the Taliban. They are doing a great job.

While this deployment may seem to be a waste of resources, it represents a compromise that allows the ISAF mission to succeed. Afghanistan needs a large number of NATO troops to operate around the country, such as PRTs and the Kabul area, as well as in combat. Each of these tasks are essential. Those countries less willing to engage their troops in combat are sent to the PRTs and Kabul. Those countries willing to risk combat are thus able to concentrate their efforts in pacifying the south. The result is a sustainable mission with a good chance of success.

Bless our troops. Come home safe, but come back proud to have done a good job.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 11:31:14 AM


Spin, spin, spin - now its up to the military to "sell" the war. Spin, spin, spin - what will ZP be saying when the troops are still there propping up the war lords and drug dealers.

Posted by: for now | 2007-08-18 12:13:06 PM


I'd say that worse allies could be found, but so long as the job gets done it's all good. When the mission is over, then the warlords and drug dealers will be Afghanistan's problem, not ours.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 12:20:16 PM


No Zeb I do not mean the Dutch - I am talking about the key players in NATO -but Dutch Politics are quite complex and dominated by their Muslim population. Agreed the Germans must contribute more
but since reunification the socialist horde have dominated German politics. Have a lot of friends in the Dutch Air Force and have done a lot of work in Germany -the losses in World War II are very real in Germany which has never really recovered from the War. Harper is fighting his government's reelection
in Afghanistan and has the socialist owned Canadian Media plus a cowardly opposition to deal
with, especially Citoyen Dion and Taliban Jack Layton. Media pressure will escalate as we approach November 2007 and a potential national Election. It appears the Liberals may eliminate Citoyen Dion in favour of Ignatieff, who will be a
much tougher opponent then Dion - MacLeod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-08-18 12:29:53 PM


Some "military expert" from the Owen Sound Sun Times
-another totally forgetable remote village in the middle of nowhere offers his expert advice on the
transfer of General O'Connor and his alleged problem with General Ricky Hillier -both very well known here in New Brunswick and long time veteran soldiers who served with the 8th NB Hussars -O'Connor as a B General was Hillier's boss when they were driving Centurion Tanks across Germany
-O'Connor was done in by Media frenzy and Liberal bureaucrats who infest DND like fleas -much of the stuff which undermined O'Connor was forwarded to
the likes of Taber, former Stable Boy Oliver and Puffy Duffy bought like a whore by the Liberals decades ago. MacKay will be just fine in Defence
and O'Connor will be OK in Revenue. Revenue in fact is the one Department of Government which could eliminate Muslim cash and related financial support to their Hezbollah allies in Canada. None of whom I'll bet pay income tax. Al Capone another gangster got done in by Income Tax evasion -where is Elliott Ness when Harper needs him -Macleod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-08-18 12:54:18 PM


"Respectable military thinking holds that, even with allies, The Mission might take half a million men. A Rand Corporation study in 2003 stated you need 20 soldiers per 1000 inhabitants for that sort of thing. Based on RAND's population figure for Afghanistan of 27,755,775, this, yields a force of about 500,000.(*) Defense expert Craig T. Cobane does not dispute the calculation, but adds: "That number was totally unfeasible and impractical."(**) In 2001, mainstream publications like the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times echoed the 500,000 figure. Nothing and no one has discredited this estimate; it's studiously ignored. Current 'coalition' forces number 30,000 to 50,000."(neummann)

If Canada, NATO, and USA cannot even deploy required amount of troops to bring democracy in Afghanistan then what is the point? Might as well leave, right?

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-18 1:25:27 PM


In fact the overblown Rand Corporation was discredited years ago --in order to determine the length of stay one must consider the definition of victory -the NATO allies and Afghanistan seek a secure border and the end to Taliban interference in Afghanistan -is such a situation attainable who knows? -the key options are in Pakistan, current issue of the US Armed Forces Journal is reviewing options but makes no recommendations - Economic pressure on Pakistan might be the ultimate conclusion. Most US military people we know feel that the US thinks they are fighting a "World War II" and in fact have no sustainable commitments at the moment to resolve Afghanistan. US options ultimately depend on mass destruction which won the Cold War -won't work against suicide bombers and related Muslim fanatics who think "Paradise"
is real. Tough political decision for PM Harper and his new Conservative Government -Macleod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-08-18 1:42:05 PM


The Rand Corp. maybe wrong in your view. However, NY times, Christian Science Monitor, and respected Defense expert Craig T. Cobane do not dispute the calculations.

It is a tough Political decision. To get re-elected, I would bet that Harper is going to do something appease the anti-war crowd. Canada has less 5000 of the required 500 000 troops in Afghanistan. We are committing about 1% of the required amount. If the Coalition does eliminate the Taliban this will require air strikes so the Afghans will have to make enormous sacrifices, mind you. Since there are not enough troops to keep the peace and rebuild. What makes you think that the Afghans will not host a similar group?

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-18 1:51:12 PM


Why are we there? Don't ask Taliban Jack. Don't ask any Liberal, it was their esteemed leader, Comical Jean, who sent them there, without any debate in the House. He of course sent them as part of NATO but had no intent on sending any troops. He had to ensure we were unable to send any to Iraq.
He committed our Forces to that Mission without proper equipment as well.

Afghanistan a special challenge, unlike anything our forces ever trained for. Difficult to deal with people who lurk among civilians to plant bombs and have no qualms about going to Paradise for their reward.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-08-18 2:51:16 PM


Why are we there? Don't ask Taliban Jack. Don't ask any Liberal, it was their esteemed leader, Comical Jean, who sent them there, without any debate in the House. He of course sent them as part of NATO but had no intent on sending any troops. He had to ensure we were unable to send any to Iraq.
He committed our Forces to that Mission without proper equipment as well.

Afghanistan a special challenge, unlike anything our forces ever trained for. Difficult to deal with people who lurk among civilians to plant bombs and have no qualms about going to Paradise for their reward.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-08-18 2:55:18 PM


I must agree with you but the Grey Lady (New York Times) is not a supporter of what they call "right wing causes" however you are right in my opinion
when one considers that a "ultimate peaceful situation: will require a commitment similar to that which followed the conclusion of the Korean War -US
Troops are still in South Korea. One of Harper's flaws is that the people close to him are politically naive when focused on international options -look how they dealt with super con man Arar
-I am sure that General Hillier has talked Afghan
conclusion policies with a host of senior US and UK General Officers he knows from past experience
-although the conclusion in Afghanistan is ultimately" political" and will be made in the House of Commons. I don't think the Taliban will
withdraw unless they decide they do not have the resources to "win" but common sense says -they appear to have unlimited resources at the moment. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-08-18 2:56:12 PM


Difficult to deal with people who lurk among civilians to plant bombs and have no qualms about going to Paradise for their reward.

Posted by: LizJ | 18-Aug-07 2:55:18 PM

And they think they are defending their Country that the West has supposedly invaded.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-18 2:57:08 PM


We are a caring nation, trying to help others at our expense, however, the truth is, the "war' is not winnable. You can't wipe out the root problem, that is: an ideology that cannot be destroyed, nor reformed. There's 1400 years +, behind us, to prove this fact. All we can possibly do, is take the edge off, and hope to hold it in some confinement and pay, pay, pay in doing so.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-18 3:18:14 PM


True, it's an ideology that will be tough to even control let alone destroy.
It's difficult for us in the civilized, modern world to understand such barbaric customs and treatment of the women in that Islamic world, the absolute cruelty and inhumane treatment.

Problem is the terrorists are branching out and coming to our modern Western Democracies through stupid, lax immigration policies. It has to stop.
No more of these wretched creeps can be allowed in. Isolation is the only way to curb the scourge.

If we need an example, look to England. That once great country is INFESTED with the beasts. What action they can take after two generations plus of
breeding home grown terrorists presents one hell of a problem. They may need another Gitmo to house them, it's a small space for such a problem.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-08-18 3:41:59 PM


If we need an example, look to England. That once great country is INFESTED with the beasts.

Posted by: LizJ | 18-Aug-07 3:41:59 PM

A bit racist and bigoted there Liz? Do Muslims scare you that much? Have you ever talked to one or you just generalize, by thinking that all Muslims are exactly like they appear on TV?

However, I could wrong. When you say "beasts", maybe Grizzly Bears are coming to get us?

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-18 3:48:28 PM


LizJ, the Libs, SPs and apologists will ensure immigration continues unabated, run by the witless who cannot understand recent history let alone the last 1400 years. Europe is lost, gone forever, now subdued slaves to Islam. Islam has always warned that's exactly what will happen given the chance. The right has warned the left for decades about this, only to be disbelieved, now look at the end result. Europeans have sold their children's and grand children's lives into chaos and dhimmitude and worse and we here still strive in the same disbelief to repeat that.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-18 3:54:32 PM


How is Europe enslaved to Islam? That is a bit nutty to say, since the EU has rejected Sharia Law from being compatible with Democracy

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-18 3:58:17 PM


Ed, Europe is now continually looking over their shoulders, trying to identify and watch terrorists, and Europeans who they themselves admit is lacking security personnel and straining the public purse. That's unnecessary trouble to be borne by all.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-18 4:07:17 PM


Edmontonian: I mean exactly what I wrote, it's a truth we have to accept. You of course are the exception, you are defending Islamic terrorism.

Only absolute fools do not fear this scourge of the 21st century.
We have to fear for our future as a strong Nation with the freedom our ancestors, forged and fought for. Muslim/Islamics were not part of our history.
They are not a fit with our way of life if they live in segregated areas and hide under garments walking in our streets.

We have no idea how many more families like the infamous Khadr gang we are supporting in this country.

It's a very serious problem for us, we have to take it seriously.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-08-18 4:22:51 PM


Give this all a break. Canada is in Afghanistan only to assuage the feelings of idiots in Washington that invaded Iraq. That is it. But for the wtc situation, no one would have reacted to the circumstances there and no one one would have followed the american extremists to war.

We are now up to our noses in a domestic political argument because Harper needs to retain his political base. For this, our people have died and we are complicit in the deaths of 100s of poor people.

Get it! Has the light come on! You are the problem, not any solution to anything.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-18 4:40:05 PM


If the EU has rejected Sharia Law, that's good but unless the Muslims accept that ruling, and demonstrate that, the problem is still there. One cannot legislate or declare sharia or jihad away just like we cannot legislate child molestation, murder or theft away. We must always come back to the root problem, the teachings and beliefs of Islam, clearly told to us by Muslims themselves, and how rigorously Muslims believe in all that.

It is interesting that a small group of moderate Muslims signed the St. Petersburg Declaration and not one mainstream Muslim group or leader in the world has stood up to also have it adopted and practiced, a declaration palpable to the general western public. Instead, the inaction and silence give cause for worry.

We have a right to be concerned about our future, cause there's good reason.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-18 4:44:49 PM


Munroe, you know bloody well the Afghanistan Mission was Chretien's decision alone, no vote in the HOC.

Harper has to do the tough job of steering us through to the finish. You can shut the hell up on the blame Harper crap, you haven't a leg to stand on.
We are still carrying out the Mission the Liberals agreed to without equipping our Forces properly as well.

There is never an end date for any war, the end is when you win or lose. We have no intention of running from the battlefield, it's never been done in our history. If it were, the likes of you and your ilk wouldn't be here spouting off freely. I might add the United States of America played a huge part in your freedom as well.

Anyone on these sites against fighting terrorism is part of the problem and in support of the radicals, can't have it both ways.
You are not fit to live among us.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-08-18 5:04:39 PM


There are no traitors in Alberta, only patriots. The oppressors live in Toronto, however. Albertans stand for human rights and human dignity, which is why Toronto hates us. They seek only free money so that they can live like kings. Still, it's not enough for them. Greed kills.

The very idea of Canada being attacked and invaded is ludicrous. The US, the only country capable of doing it, is simultaneously the least likely to do so. Such deranged attitudes are a thing of the past, and usually confined to the lunatic.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 5:53:40 PM


The implication that any Canadian who moves to the US is a traitor is ridiculous. In my little circle here in Alabama, I've already encountered several Canadians. They emigrated because of employment and marriage. Millions of Canadians have ties to the US - even Pierre the Terrible who spent some time at Harvard University. Historian J. L. Granatstein earned his PhD in Canadian history at Duke Univ in North Carolina (of all places!). Most in fact have at least some economic ties. If those with US ties were to disappear, Canada would resemble Cambodia under Pol Pot. So this line of reasoning just doesn't work.

It depends. Why would the US invade if they ever were to?

If Ontario started it, which is 99% likely, I would help the US, as would every Albertan, to put down the stupid people once and for all.

If it was someone else, I might remain neutral. Who knows, it might be a good thing, like rooting out a cancer like the Liebral/Dipper/Green alliance.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 6:12:10 PM


Okay you fight with your bare hands to defend the privileged elite. I'll fight with the US Marine Corps and the 101st Airborne Division, and we'll see who wins.

God Bless America and Alberta.

God Damn Fascist Ontario and their flag, aka Old Greedy.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 6:33:48 PM


An America-hating Muslim argues with an Ontario-hating American. Great debate guys.

As for Afghanistan, NATO should leave as soon as it's feasible. Why are we propping up a government of warlorlds, drug barons, Islamists and outright criminals? These unreformable barbarians don't deserve our help. Keep all Afghans out of Canada and bomb them relentlessly if they cause trouble.

BTW, real Canadian patriots love America and all of our provinces, OK morons?

Posted by: JP | 2007-08-18 7:01:22 PM


Whose freedom is the Taliban fighting? Their own freedom to oppress like they did before 2001? The UN went after the Taliban several times for gross human rights abuses. One really should put some thought into who we fight - they're not automatically right.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 7:22:16 PM


Suggest you read J.L. Granastein's book, "Whose War Is It?" Most of us could find lots to complain about the US but your anti-American ravings are simply pathetic.

Posted by: DML | 2007-08-18 7:33:21 PM


The Taliban could be compared to the Mountain in the French Revolution. They became so extreme that they had to be disposed of. The old joke is that the French began revolting in 1789 and have been revolting ever since.

Posted by: DML | 2007-08-18 7:37:16 PM


No. The Taliban came about because of the ISI, Pakistan's Interservice Intelligence agency. They needed to secure Afghanistan after the civil war in the mid-90s. Taliban recruits came from Afghan refugees educated in extremist Madrassas in Pakistan. They tried to implement Islamic law in a pure form, which did lead to suppression of warlords and some of the drug trade. It also led, however, to brutal treatment of those suspected of the slightest deviation from Islamic law. Their grossest crime was the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, a UNESCO world heritage site.

The Taliban became so controversial that only three countries recognized its authority - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - each of whom withdrew their recognition after 9/11. Thankfully the US and its NATO allies, aided by the United Front (also called the Northern Alliance) defeated the Taliban in less than three months and brought about a new government with the approval of the various tribes.

They destroyed themselves by siding with Al Qaeda. All they had to do was hand OBL over (dubious at best) and they might still be around. Sadly for them, they chose to mess with the USA and its allies, Canada proudly among them.

While solutions to many of Afghanistan's problems remain elusive, the Taliban cannot offer any. They brutalized the population to satisfy their own ideology. The ISI must have been aware of what they created. Oh well, that's in the past.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 7:37:51 PM


While York is a third-rate university, you're wrong about JLG. He's a lifelong Liberal, and has produced many competent works in Canadian history. His students have also made substantial contributions to the subject. Not bad for a US-educated guy = Duke University.

Looks like Roger only appreciates those who share is narrow-minded perspective on the world - i.e. Toronto.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 7:41:29 PM


Zeb- your assessment and history are fine. I was simply comparing extremist positions and making a mild joke. I also realize that your earlier post was not about consumer goods but about very dedicated and complex medical appliances. Too bad those who froth at the mouth have their brains addled by encroaching rabies.

Posted by: DML | 2007-08-18 7:52:07 PM


Not a lie, the goods are mostly designed in the US and Europe, etc. Trolls who are incapable of original thought can be taught repetitve digital movements and since they will work for less can be engaged to do the grunt work. They can also be made to work for low wages in PRC army owned and run factories.

Posted by: DML | 2007-08-18 8:06:23 PM


DML: would that mean roger might actually be able to get A non-government job? Wow.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 8:22:46 PM


Thanks Zeb- only if he, she, it waspressed into involutary service.

Posted by: DML | 2007-08-18 8:33:30 PM


Thanks for the vote of confidence. I was a member of the Canadian Forces for 25 years and did not regret my service even though provided a lot of stress for my family. Whats your record?

Posted by: DML | 2007-08-18 8:51:28 PM


Ali,
Why don't you act on your convictions and go join your head-chopping heroes in the Taliban? You think that our troops and their NATO allies have had their "backs broken" in Afghanistan, so why not join your co-religionists in their imminent victory? What are you waiting for?

Of course, you won't go fight for your strongly held beliefs because you're a rank coward and an ingrate who spits on the country that brought you up from the grinding poverty and crushing ignorance of the lands of your forefathers.

You prefer the soft, easy life found in our North American, Anglo-European, Judeo-Christian country than fighting on behalf of your own people. Quit being a hypocrite and go join the Islamist insurgency that you so strongly support. Or failing that, shut the fuck up.


Posted by: JP | 2007-08-18 8:53:52 PM


This blog is diminished in intelligent debate by this so called 'Roger', a Taliban, Al Queda supporting, terrorist supporting screaming Islamic anarchist posting here with a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth and is the most anti-Canadian seditionist I have seen in in my lifetime. He should be completely ignored, or better, banned, so those who would like to debate as adults here, can do so.

My humble opinion.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-18 9:31:34 PM


...good to see ROGER back again.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-08-18 10:39:55 PM


Roger: what happens when we secede with non-violent means?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-18 10:47:02 PM


Roger: what happens when we secede with non-violent means?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 18-Aug-07 10:47:02 PM

In my opinion, Afghanistan will be the same as it was since 1979. A non-threatening third world nation, whose land has been torn apart by War amongst Foreigners.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-18 11:01:51 PM


Eventually the Paki's and Their Taliban creation are going to annoy the Peoples Republic of China who
will simply take over Afghanistan and introduce PRC style democracy - Many US and European Think Tanks
have focused on the PRC and their unending search for cheap renewable energy -Afghanistan is their answer - the PRC would and could turn Pakistan into a cinder covered wasteland very quickly.Canadian soldiers who fought the PRC in Korea will attest to how tough and ruthless the Chinese are, who have the resources and manpower to undertake any military task which might excite them.They don't get too excited about fighting the USA or NATO who can bite back. MacLeod.

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-08-19 6:47:27 AM


Isn't "Afghanistan" the loose Chinese translation for "Tibet"?

Posted by: obc | 2007-08-19 7:04:48 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.